meeting to order at 7. Um, good I'm going to I'm going to read this. Good morning, afternoon, evening, good evening. Um, it's a preliminary matter. This is u the fincom meeting um for April 13th. Um,
this open meeting of Fincom is being conducted via Zoom. Um, speakers on the agenda will be participating remotely. Um, and the vice chair may allow for the public to provide comments. Um, and I'll just confirm that everyone can hear. I'll take attendance. Um, so Linda, I'll
start with you. >> Yes. >> All right. Great. And Nathan, >> yes. >> And Nquille, >> yes. >> And Peter, >> yes. >> Awesome. Um, and I don't think we have any anticipated speakers on the agenda,
so we don't need to um introduce them. Um, be aware that other folks may be able to see you, so try not to screen share your computer. Um, everything should be on board docs. I tested to make sure most of the links open. There was a lot of them. Um, and
we'll probably reference a number of them today. Um, I think that's good enough. All right. So, we'll jump into it. Um, all right. So, for the agenda, she first had budget and updates, but I think that ties into
all the articles we received. Um, so how do you guys feel about just jumping into all of the ones that we still need to um vote and make comments on? Should we just do that? All right. So, let me share
my word doc. Kind of went through these today and just made some notes about what ones um there's a lot that we still have to um vote on. So, I'll go back to article three.
All right. So, so one is good. Um, we recommended there's a comment. Um, article article two is good. We recommended there's a comment. Um, article three. So, this one is about and we haven't even assigned to
it as the comment for it yet. Um, but this is about priory year bills. We haven't voted on this. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, so is there so this is um to see if the town will vote to appropriate from certified free cash the sum is
66,000 roughly to pay bills of a prior year and to be appropriated as follows. And I think there was um a concern about Jillian sent and um I don't know if it was all circulated to everyone but they fixed the numbers. Um so the text says
1.2 million but the numbers don't add to that. Um and Greg said I'm working on finalizing this prior year's bills article. Um, here's the current motion and he adjusted those figures. Um, I I think that they add up now. Um,
and then sponsor comments. Um, he said the explanation for the Eversource bills was derived from the school department, so I needed coordination from the superintendent's office. Um, the Boston Mutual Life Insurance Bill was relatively new to him at the time and he needed more explanation from his team on the circumstances on that. and then
said, "I'll update you as soon as possible regarding the sponsor comment." >> So, is this different from uh control C free cash that was in the um the documents for today's meeting? >> I
>> Yes, this is not free cash. >> Yes, this is different. >> Okay. Although, well, we should confirm the amounts the same. I think the 66,000 comes from free cash though. >> Yes, it does. It in the article it says
appropriating it from certified free cash. >> Oh, I see. Yeah. So, okay. So, in this um control number C, it's 66 uh 2.88.75 and that looks like it adds up
correctly. Okay, cool. Great. And then Jillian made the a comment to him that should we recommend putting article 10 prior to this because I think article 10 might be the free cash one. Um and they're still working on the order
of things. So he took that into consideration. So do we have enough information we want to take a vote on this? Any questions or comments? >> I I I think I'm fine with taking a vote on it.
>> So am I. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, um, who would like to make a motion to recommend this? >> Uh, I move to vote in favor of article three. >> I'll second.
>> Oh, Peter. Peter got it. Yeah. Okay. >> All right. So, Nathan first, Peter second. Um, and I'll take a roll call vote. Um, so, um, see if we recommend. Um Linda >> yes. >> Nikil, >> yes.
>> Nathan, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> And I'm a yes. So, that is five to zero. Um, and who does anyone feel highly motivated to to be the comment maker? It says non assigned. So I'll write down someone who
would like to do that one. >> And I haven't done many. I were you >> because I could I haven't done money either. I could do it. >> Okay. All right. So Linda, I'm going to assign you article three and then I can go in here. Just
>> Sorry, just double checking. Sorry. Um, today's the last day that we're acting before the printed warrant, >> right? >> Okay. So, just >> do we want to comment? Do we want to write our comment together right now? Is what you're
>> Well, for some of the smaller ones, we may >> Yeah. >> Should we look at >> this may be complicated enough that we don't want to write this on the fly? >> Yeah. I can pull up last year's and
look. Maybe we'll vote on them all and then we can come back to comments when we see how much time we have left. >> I think that's a good idea. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Um, so I'm going to put here recommends. I know I spelled that wrong and it will fix it for me. Okay.
All right. Great. All right. So, article four we also have to vote on. So, this is the certified free cash. So, maybe he did move it. Oh, maybe not. But anyway, um, so to see if the town will vote to appropriate. Um, >> so
I don't understand this. I don't understand how there can be option A and option B. Um, so I would propose we wait on this. >> Yeah. Why are there two options? >> So there was So I don't know if you watched this. So I watched the select
board meeting about town meeting. Um, there's some discussion as to whether we would start the trash and recycling enterprise fund as of July 1 or as of October 1.
>> Okay. >> If we do it as of October 1, then we would, you know, continue the sticker and, you know, general fund subsidy of the current trash program. >> And so there's I
There's some money elsewhere, but I maybe that's 77. So if you go to the top of this list of things, the difference is uh wait. >> So it looks like capital stabilization fund, but general stabil stabilization
fund is also a little less on option B. Police cruise. >> Sorry, go down. Is there a trash line separate from C? Oh, >> solid wasted 21,000. Yeah, >> that's what we would do if we're going to not start the enterprise fund immediately.
>> I see >> that there won't be a decision on that until the next select board meeting on April 21st, I believe. >> Yeah. Yeah, I saw a note with that date. Yeah. >> Um, so
>> did did you get any sense of which way they were leading or were leaning? >> Not fully. No. Um I'm gathering and you know they didn't talk very specifically about it but
mostly it's a concern about educating residents and the roll out that trying to you know voted in at town meeting and then start it well I guess we've already voted it in vote in the budget um and then start the program on
July 1st may just be too ambitious a timeline. Hm. I mean, I'm I'm strongly strongly in favor of starting it on July 1st. I do not like the idea of waiting until October 1st and continuing to subsidize
it with free cash. Like like for for me, like you know, the difference between option A and option B, that's like that's like enough of like whether I would vote in favor of this appropriation or not. Um, I'm not sure there's a strong
vehicle to communicate that. Um, I would certainly encourage you to send a note to David or to uh Greg or to both and just saying, "Hey, as one member, I don't want to waste 211,000. Let's get
going." Whatever your reasoning is. Um, >> so once the select board meets to decide, will this change this article and there won't be any there'll just be one? >> I believe so. I I mean, I don't know what the heck the article is going to go
to town meeting like, you know, you >> I assume they have we'll have to pick one of them, >> right? >> And they'll pick it, you know, after they decide on the trash stuff next week. >> Okay.
So then we just table this one until we know what they decide. >> I think so. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> So we will leave that one as is. Um >> but we have a meeting on April 27th. So then this one we'll still have time
before the hearing to weigh in on this on our >> Yes. Once we know the decision of the select. >> Yep. Okay. Okay. >> All right. So, article five we have voted on already and we have commented.
Article six we have voted um yep we voted on this. We did not recommend this and we have commented. Um article 7 we have not. So did I write? Yeah, I wrote kind of a I'll need help with the comment on this
one. This was um town general fund budget um to see if the town will raise an appropriate transfer from um salary and wages of the town officers and employees. Um
so these are the numbers. >> Um it seems like these are final or as final as we're going to get and you know unlikely to change before a town meeting. So, >> right. >> Um, knowing that, I'd move to recommend article
7 or the current article. Yeah, actually, we should the I'm sorry, Linda, as you do the minutes, can you say article 7, general fund budget? >> Yeah. >> Um, just
>> just in case they change numbers. Yeah, this is a tentative, >> right, >> numbering of articles. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I think it's better this than trying to go back to the original letters. So, >> yeah. >> Okay. Um, so to remove to I'm moving to
recommend the current article 7, the general fund budget. >> All right. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> All right. Peter first, Linda second, and I'll take a roll call vote. Um, Linda, >> yes.
>> Um, Nquille, >> yes. >> And Nathan, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> And I am a yes. >> So I that So I signed up for the comment last week and I I just copy pasted the
one from last year, which we had an override and we had many other things last year that we felt we needed to speak more to that and I took out some of that. Um but I left like the first paragraph still fit. So passage of this article would adopt the proposed town
general fund budget for the fiscal year um FY27 and the amount of blah blah blah. Um the breakdown by 10 major town functions and the table above show how the budget is is to be allocated to various purposes. The budget process begins months in advance. Um blah blah blah. It is a combined effort of the
select board town administrator fincom school committee and all the department heads. Finom encourages town meeting voters to participate in these discussions. Um, and then last year we said we voted to recommend this article because it presents a balanced budget that weighs the needs of the town with the revenue available from the Prop 2 and a half and new growth increase.
Does that still apply? Those parts of it at least. Is there anything else we should mention? >> The difference in the comments of 57 to 55 million.
Um, sorry. I should have raised this before. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Is it Oh, the difference is always the overlay, which last year looks like it was 240,000, but um >> not 2 million, >> not 22 million.
Uh >> or 2.2 million. >> Was it 57 million versus 55? >> 576 versus 556. So, it's a $2 million difference. >> 2 million. 2 million. Yeah. Huh. Um,
>> and I thought the difference was always the overlay. Um, I don't think that's the difference. >> Okay. >> I don't I don't think there's any
um not quite the right word, but validity to the number in the comments. Um, and also I'm going to say again, as I always do, that comment is wrong. >> I think that's last year's number.
>> Oh, maybe it is. 5369. Last year it was 53696. >> Okay. >> And it actually matched. >> Huh. >> So, should I make a comment that we think that that sponsor comment is not correct?
Well, it's also not correct because we don't do a single raise and appropriate >> we appropriate we raise and appropriate you know the 10 different or 12 different line items whatever it is >> right >> so
um but again I've never emphasized it that I'm sure people have heard me say this comment before, but because it's in the comments and I don't want to start creating a lot
of validity to the comments because that thing is so wrong. >> Yeah, >> it looks like in um 2023 the comment said a single raise in appropriation and there the appropriation did match
between the article and the comment too. So, we should verify the number that they have in the sponsor comment. Obviously, it's wrong. >> No. >> Do do we still want to um >> I'm trying to recall >> I mean, would it be worth waiting on the
comment on this >> to highlight? I mean, I don't know, Linda. It would be the perfect place to start to highlight the town has got to start to figure out health insurance. >> Yeah. >> Um or to comment on, you know,
year-to-year changes in the various lines. Um I >> Mhm. >> of any article, I think this deserves the most thinking and analysis in our comments and is our chance to say,
"Yeah, health insurance is going crazy. you know, debt service went down because of this. You know, there's a new initiative and I don't know what it would be, but you know, we might highlight that, you know, this is probably a large increase
in general government um because of the senior center. I just >> yeah, >> it would be good good to add a little more description given this is the biggest dollar thing
on this warrant. >> Well, we're going to be having a um a handout one way or another at town meeting. So yes, >> would even if we would it make sense to just leave the comment as it is for printing in the warrant and then in our handout
we can have like a longer description of all of those things >> or I can leave it highlighted and depending on when you know how long tonight goes to maybe we could come back and add a few key things to it.
I mean, I think it would be good to include a comment >> if it's, you know, somewhat substantive. >> I'm so I I just don't think that comment
says very much that informs town meeting voters. >> No, it's very general. Yeah. So, >> so I'm going to do >> that's why I would say, you know, at town meeting or >> let's just go like that.
>> Yeah, I agree. >> Okay. And I I still will email would it be Greg um about that number and >> yes probably Greg. >> Okay Greg. Okay. And then the rest
there's a bunch that we have not voted on. So we got recommends article 8 we still have to um vote on. So revolving fund expenditures. I don't think there was any notes from Greg on
this particular one that I saw. So, see if the town will vote to authorize the total expenditures. Um, so there's the conservation commission wetlands 25,000, planning board 25,000. So, these are just revolving funds that
they have to um allocate. Looks like the biggest one is Council on Aging at 85,000 for the van service. >> Yeah, I'm not requ recalling why we didn't approve this or didn't
>> Yeah, I don't know why either. >> Well, it last week um I think I think it was like highlighted like it had recently been changed and we thought it might still be in fluxed. >> Okay. >> Okay. But the numbers last week, I checked against the previous town meeting and
they're exactly the same. So, if it hasn't changed since last week, I think I would I would move to Should we just vote on this? >> Sure. >> I would. >> I move to vote in favor of article 8 uh revolving funds.
>> I'll second. >> Nathan first, Peter second. I will take roll call um to recommend um Linda. >> Yes. >> Nikil, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes.
>> And I am a yes. >> I always spell recommends wrong every single time. All right. And it looks like we already um maybe Jill put this in or we just put in a draft if we did vote on it. >> Um this is it's just a a basic this is annual procedural article. Okay. So, I
will unhighlight this. >> Although I I do have a comment. Um yeah, this has changed since uh last week because um last ATM 2025 the total is 410,000 and now it's 440. Um and part of
that I can see is municipal permitting went from 40 to 50. Uh plumbing and gas inspection. Um it's still 60. Sorry, I was looking at the wrong line. 25. Everything here is the same aside from the municipal permitting. Do you mind going up? >> Oh yeah.
>> And then those two are the same as well. So something isn't adding up correctly for me. >> 10,65 60. >> Oh, and the electrical vehicle charging
went up by 20. >> So that's that's the 30,000. So can can we add to our comments that um the electrical the EV charging stations has gone up by 20,000 and municipal permitting has gone up 10,000.
>> Um so let's see the city trying to clean my face. Um so the Oops. >> So the electrical wiring one >> the electrical vehicle charging stations has increased by 10,000.
>> Sorry. uh 20,000 >> churching increased by we'll say 20,000 and the >> municipal permitting has increased by
10,000. >> Municipal permitting has increased by 10, you said. >> Yep. charging so I can spell municipal. Maybe I'll capitalize those.
And I guess this is the limits for electrical vehicle charging stations, right? >> Right. Right. And then at the end of the sentence, uh, since the prior fiscal year. Perfect. Pending has increased by 10,000 since
the prior fiscal year. Okay, that good. So, I'm going to mark. So, that's eight now. All right. So, oh, >> sorry, Katie. Can I just um Is there an email from Greg Johnson
replying to some of our questions? >> Yes, I have them. >> Okay. But I'm just That's not in the materials. >> It's not. I got one for article 3, article 23, article 7, article 9.
>> Okay. I was I didn't see that one. Um, okay. We can take them up as they as we get to the article then. Okay. >> Okay. >> Um, I believe this was one we had questions on. So, this is um article 9 transfer for ambulance receipts. Um, so
we said that there was some typos. Um, and did he change it? Um, 328,317 in text of article still first sentence. Um so then he said sponsor comments talk about firetruck but not in article itself. Um recommend make clear the
pumper is the fire truck in text. And then we asked why did we drop the 105 in capital assets? What changed? Um did we think not sustainable to draw down that fund? And Greg said yes we have um substantial amount built up. So that will be spent as a transfer to the
general fund for FY27 to pay for those identified capital cost. I increase the revenue from transfers from other funds like sewer, water, ambulance, and proposed trash to reflect the 105,000 costs. This article is to um is for the
lease appropriation whereas the 105,000 is purchases, not leasing. Now it's 100,000. So it's a little less. That looks like so prisoners. So purchase of a pumper and then pay the third year of a 5-year
lease. Those are the two costs. And then we noted that the ambulance receipts reserve fund is currently 748,000. Are they noted? I still though that 328,000 still doesn't add up to be those two.
No, >> right? Am I missing something? No, it's it's not adding up. It's like 222. Something changed. Seems like they dropped something that was from when we looked at it last week.
I'm trying to think where I can go back to. >> So, yeah. So the original article as control F was for 328 and had 121 for the typhoon pumper, 100
for the ambulance, and 105 for capital assets. >> I think that totals the 328. >> Yeah. >> But then the 105 was dropped from the description, but the amount didn't change. Right.
>> Yeah. In the email, it seems like Craig is saying that that 328 is still the typo. Um, which just needs to be corrected and hasn't been corrected yet is just my read of it. >> Yeah, the typos 328. >> Sorry, where are you reading that from, Nquille?
>> In his email that it's in the um >> it says title FY27. Thanks. We'll double check the titles and then but I don't see where he said typo. >> It's on the bottom line. It says typos.
>> Oh. Oh. Oh. >> The subject line of the email is documents for Monday. Have a good meeting if you're looking at it on email. >> All right. Thank you. >> Oh, I don't have page 44. That's why. I have that actually in um
>> I see. >> Yeah, typos. Okay. >> Sorry. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Um I had the um I think the I believe the assigned comment for this one. I mean, once the typos are resolved, um it did seem to me that we could just use last year's comment, which was um
passage of this article will move money from ambulance receipts to be used for leasing required equipment for emergency services. Um and of course, the articles, you know, this year and last year are substantially similar, too. So, but just sort of my just that's just me
sort of using last year's language. >> Can we still take a vote on it with the typo? I would rather not. I mean, yeah, >> I I would rather see the thing that says it's 200 and whatever it is and >> Okay,
so we will wait. Article 9 still typo. >> Wait to vote. >> Okay, so that's article nine. So I'm going to go down now. All right. So, this is 10, which is general fund capital outlay to see if
the town will vote to transfer unexpend unexpended funds from the following capital funds for the following purchases. Um, so we have road acceptance, fire station storage. You can see um alumni bleachers planning is on here.
Um, one of the bigger ones looks to be Oh, there's quite a few bigger ones. summer street reuse storm water. So it's 94,724 total. Most of that would go to the general fund and some to the general stabilization fund.
And let me see if there's any comments on this. I don't >> um sorry I sent comments for this roughly 550 5:30 today. >> Oh to me or to Jill >> to you and Jill.
>> Okay let's >> so if you want to paste them in we >> Yeah I'll do that right now. >> Oh I see him >> or let me Peter Campbell. Okay.
So, let's download them real quick. See how fast my computer is. So, this is different than what we looked at last week, which it was going to free cash. So, now they're going to put it to these. >> Yeah. So last week we looked at it and
they were closing it out to free cash and then the free cash list >> right >> is bigger. >> Yep. And now they're just snow and ice. So snow and ice in a little to stabilization. >> Okay. >> I copy pasted >> this looks this looks like a cleaner way
to do it. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, I guess we um we need to take a vote on it and then we can read your comment, Peter. >> So, the only thing and I don't think it's worth holding it up. So, you know,
everything on there makes sense to me except as I was, you know, reading them more carefully, the Main Street storm water project for 200,000. >> I don't I mean, the fact that we didn't spend money on the DPW facility makes
sense. The alumni bleachers makes sense. There's leftover money from summer street reuse. I get that. But I mean, I'm will I Justin so hot to spend money on, you know, sewer and storm water
infrastructure that if we really needed it, I guess he would have done it. But I don't that's the only one there that struck me as wait. I don't I don't know why we didn't do it. And I can kind of can, you know, make it up for the other ones anyway.
Why are there two for there's three for alumni field bleachers >> different pieces of alumni. We we authorized a fair amount of money you know trying to get money together for bleachers
but have since dropped it. >> I see. Okay. So, I would still vote to recommend or I'll, you know, I'll make the motion if people are ready, but that was the only one. And I don't, you know, I'm willing to go with and assume Justin's not, you
know, irresponsibly not doing the project, >> right? He wants to do as many projects as he can. We know. So, >> yes. >> Was that a motion? >> Uh, sure. I'll move to recommend uh article 10,
the general fund capital outlay. >> I will second. >> And I will take a roll call vote. Um Linda, >> yes. >> Nquille, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes.
>> And I'm a yes. So great. So I'll put recommends. So Peter's comment said, "This article takes unspent money from various previously authorized projects and uses it primarily for the snow and ice deficit with the remainder put in the capital stabilation account. Um the unspent money is from projects not
started um or lower than budgeted cost for a completed project. The snow and ice deficit is a regular planned occurrence and is generally funded from free cash. By closing these projects, we're able to use free cash for other purposes." Yeah, I think that sounds great.
Any other comments on the comment? >> Looks good. >> All right. Good job, Peter. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Wait, do you see my sewer budget one? >> Uh-oh. I'll copy and paste when I get there. So, this is article 11, which we also
need to vote on. Um, so this is the Mayor Golf Course receipts, $63,960. I don't think I don't think we have any notes from Brig on this one that I saw.
>> Um, so transferred because there was no it was I don't think there was any like number in it last week. >> Oh >> yeah. I don't have last last up. >> Yeah. >> And this is a >> I can't remember a big issue with it.
That would make sense. says the current balance um is 311,000 cost for the roof I know still so like if this money is being built up and we don't actually replace the roof and they just demolish the money this money can
still be used for those facilities >> or for you know town meeting can reappropriate it for any other purpose. >> Right. Right. Right. And then we drafted um in anticipation passage of this article would allow the town to use last year's revenue from the golf course to pay for the maintenance
and improvement of the golf course as it has in prior years. This is part of an ongoing savings plan to fund large-scale capital improvements to the clubhouse. Um pending the review and advice of the golf course advisory task force. The finance committee believes this is the most appropriate allocation of the golf course revenue.
>> Katie, at the end of the second line of our comment, it says gold instead of golf. the golden gold. >> Oh, I see that. >> Good catch. >> Not very gold. >> Good. Okay. All right. So, I think that sounds okay.
If everyone else does that, so I'm assuming that means we're going to make a motion to recommend this. Um, do we want to take a vote? >> I'll move to approve. I'll move to recommend. Sorry. Do we have a second?
>> Uh, I'll second. >> Great. >> Sorry, Nathan. >> Um, I'll take roll call. Um, Linda, >> yes. >> And Nikia, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes.
>> And I am a yes. So, five. >> Awesome. >> All right, we'll keep it going. So 12. So this one um this select board hasn't actually voted on this one yet.
I believe I made a note of that. >> It's correct. They have not. >> Okay. So then we don't need to waste time today, right? Voting on this yet. We can't. >> Yeah. There was no um I had a question on this article that
I'm happy to follow up with Greg directly. >> Um but from everything the police so the police chief did a presentation on this at at the select board meeting. Um we have a grant for a five-year
contract. You know, it's like 120,000. probably the numbers are in there. No, they're not. Um, so it's 120,000 for the five years. We get a $70,000 grant. So the net cost for the town is about 50,000.
>> Okay. >> Um, but it's specifically for a five-year contract. So I don't know why Greg has in there, you know, 3 to 15 years, >> right? >> We're not paying for a 15-year contract.
There's no appropriation for it. And I don't and I guess my question also is does this somehow create authorization for the next contract? >> And particularly with police body cameras,
I want to go slow. I don't want a 15-year contract for anything with this. I I technology >> technology is going to change. >> Yeah. And I I want town meeting to hear about it. And I surely, you know,
not that Greg would ever do any, but you know, you get a different town administrator who thinks, oh yeah, >> I'll sign the town up for 30 years with this company, >> right? >> Or well, 15 years, but um so anyway, um >> I can ask that Peter in my email to him
with questions. >> Okay, fine. So it's, you know, um why 15 years? Because we're specifically imagining a five-year contract. >> Yep. And then does this article, you know, give authorization for this
contract only or for this and future contracts where the 15-year thing might come into play. >> Got it. Yeah, I get that. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other questions um that anyone wants me to ask on this one?
not hearing any. Okay. So then the next three we have voted and um so this one article 13 is the lease um of the reservoir lot off summer street. So
they're leasing a section of it um including a lease of up to 30 years. We already voted and recommended it. Um, this one Jill just wasn't sure if those if this comment was finalized,
but we had said, "Pass of this article would allow the town to procure a new lease for the property at the Reservoir Law Off Summer Street. This parcel is currently where a cell tower is located, and this current lease is expiring. The town will negotiate a lease agreement through a request for proposals, RFP
process, by allowing the town up to a 30-year lease term. This will potentially allow for a more advantageous proposal. Does that sound good? >> Um, so I think that is word for word the comment from last year. >> Oh,
>> and I just uh I'm lost it. I'm trying to look at the sponsor comments to make sure we're not missing something. So, what is this? Article 13. >> 13. Yeah. So this seems correct because it's the
it's the fenced in area that includes a cell tower. >> Yeah. And it seems like it is the same description of an event that is just a different lease. So yeah, I think the comments are fine. >> Okay, great. So I will un
highlight this. Oops, no color. Then I don't know how I'm not so smart with a word to get rid of. Oh, I'll just put thumbs up. Oh well. Okay. So then I think the next one 14 we also
have voted and wrote um a comment on this is to see if the town will um CPC funds um appropriate them. So there's long-term debt, long-term debt interest, historic preservation reserve.
So, it's a total of $450,000. Um, we voted recommend Oh, that's the budget, but we're appropriating $132,550. And we already wrote a comment on this one, so we will move on. Um, article 15,
we also voted on and made a comment on this was also CPC appropriations for 479,000. Um, and we have a note. >> Do you want me to read the notes if it's
not highlighted? Do you feel I'm I'm fine to move on? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Sorry. I don't know what you mean by the note. >> Oh, sorry, note. Um, our comment. Sorry. Finance committee comment. >> Yeah, I'm fine with the comment.
>> I've been talking about client notes at work all day and the word note is in my brain. All right. Um 16 we have voted on but we do not have a comment. So this is the water enterprise. Was this maybe one of Peter? You maybe sent this to me.
>> Yes, I sent this and it's in that same document. >> Let me grab that. So this is 16. I see it right here. Let's just copy paste that. Go back to here.
So, I'll delete this. All right. So, Peter wrote, "This article creates the FY27 budget for the water enterprise fund. This budget continues to support development of new water sources needed for the town. There's a 1% decrease in this budget because some of the ongoing work at
Rockland Field has provide has proved less expensive than originally thought. Water uses water users will note that there is a planned 7% increase in water rates. Remember we talked about that last week. Even though the budget isn't increasing, this is because water usage is down and the price must increase to
raise the same amount of money. Overall, the lower water usage is good because it reduces the strain on our water supply. >> So, I just added that second note cuz I thought it would come up at town meeting somebody's going to ask and um I thought it was, you know, somewhat informative
to people. Um, but >> I think that's good because we had lots of >> strictly speaking. It doesn't have much to do with this article, but >> I'll leave it in there. >> I like it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> And does it also include the 7% also presumes that we're going to do the the 3 million that we that we were going to later? Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. That's good.
>> Okay. So, we have a recommends. We have a comment we like. That is great. Um 17 we have voted and commented on. This was the water retained earnings transfer. Um
we recommended it. We wrote our comment. 18. She wanted us to check her comment. We voted on this. We or we recommended it. This is to um do a transfer to close out while 4a bond deficit. Um we wrote this article would transfer that number
is right 148,413 out of the 912539 in water retained earnings for the DPW to close out the 8 million roughly well48 project. So maybe she just wants us to confirm those numbers. I know that
at the beginning of this document was the was the totals. Um right. So here's the water retained earnings I have at 1.2. Is that
>> um I think the things in yellow have not been updated by Greg yet. Okay. >> Um cuz I can double check, but the 912 is the right number.
Let me go back down. Make myself dizzy. There we go. I I think I referred to some of those numbers in one of my comments. So, if we don't know that number, should we just leave it out? >> Uh, I'm sorry. Of the yearly retained
earnings or the balance of one of the stabilization funds? >> The balance. >> Yeah, I don't know those balances and I I don't have a good source off the top of my head. The 912 is definitely the retained earnings. >> Okay.
>> I know in the in the past when we've sort of, you know, done the comments of this type, we generally I I I seem trolic, you know, we do try and say something about like how much is in there. So like people have, you know, more context for like how much is being taken out and that sort of thing in terms of like proportion and stuff. So
could be good to leave the number sort of whatever it ends up being in there. >> So the number at the top of the document is still wrong. We think the 1.2 million. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. I'll have to look at one of my comments that
Well, anyway, I'll go back and look at that. Make sure I didn't use one of those old numbers. Um, so that's right. So, I'm going to un highlight these. And the welfare 8 project is around 8 million. Does that sound right?
I don't know on that one. >> Yeah. I can't swear to that. I mean, I know it's a lot of money, but >> I wasn't here for the meeting where um we had Justin come, but was that was that one of the things that he talked about at that meeting?
>> He did talk about it cuz it saves by paying it off. It saves interest, you know, it's like paying off any debt early. He did talk about about that. I don't remember the 8 million. >> She must have got that from somewhere.
So >> is it and is it the FY24? Correct. FY24 surplus funds the water enterprise fund because I thought that 912 balance would
be No, it can't be the end of FY26. >> Oh, you're right though. It's FY25. >> 25. Yeah. Yeah, that's what the free cash is from. >> And the one at the top is
says the balances are as follows. Huh. So that would be probably the balances as of the end of FY25. Huh. All right. Are we good with this comment as a whole?
I mean, she has roughly 8 million. We didn't put an exact number in there. >> Yeah. This is 18. All right, you guys feel comfortable moving on? >> And I can just uh confirm that that uh
1.2 million that is from last year's uh warrant because that has the same number on the 2025 annual town meeting warrant. >> Okay. Okay. So, they're incorrect. All right. 19 we um voted on. We recommended it. This is to um
appropriate the 3 million for the um engineering and design for the um drinking water ground well. So we have not wrote that's oh Nathaniel and he isn't here. So, um,
maybe I'll email him tonight and see if he has Well, but then we can't discuss it. So, that that will be one that we'll have to Let me quick check my email and make sure. Let me make sure he hasn't emailed me. No.
All right. So we will have to wait on that one. And this is 19. Okay. All right. 20 and 21 we have to vote on. So 20 is um water allocation
authorization PAS settlement award funding. Um so we got $151,933. Um we want to transfer it from the settlement fund um into the water improvement fund to pay costs related to infrastructure and maintenance. Um
we have a small Oh, there. So we already drafted passing this article would transfer legal settlement funds already held by town to the water improvement fund. A water price enterprise water enterprise capital fund. This would allow the town to use this money to upgrade our water management and treatment facilities.
>> I just added a period at the uh at the end there. I think this may have been mine, so apologies for that. >> Here we go. And I'll unhighlight it. >> All right. Do we feel good about voting on this one? >> Yes. I uh move to recommend article 20
on the PAS settlement award funding. >> Do we have a second? All second. >> All right. So, Nathan first, Peter second. Take a roll call vote. Linda, >> yes. >> Um, Nikil, >> yes.
>> Peter, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> And I am a yes. I think that comment is good. >> I think it's pretty much the same one that we used last year. >> Last time. Yeah. >> Okay, great.
So now 21. So this one we do have to vote on as well. Um and is there any notes on this one? I don't see any notes from Greg on this one. Um see if the town will vote to recommend um these sums be appropriated.
This is for the sewer enterprise fund. salaries, expenses, debt, um, and then indirect expenses for a total of $4,323,684. So, they know that this was 2.3% over 2026.
Oh, Peter, did you >> I think I got three lines. >> All right. Two. Oh, two. Oh, yeah. Three. Three sentences. Two lines. >> Yeah. >> I struggled to add the third sentence.
>> All right. Let's see what you got. Let me copy paste here. >> This article creates the FY27 budget for the sewer enterprise fund. This budget is increasing 2.3%. The budget growth is reasonable and doesn't include major changes.
gets to the point. >> Yeah. I It just isn't I mean, we could do some long thing about how, you know, we're probably underfunding our sewer infrastructure because the pipes are all 100 years old,
but I couldn't quite pull that off. >> Yeah. >> Um, so that's all I had. We could say like um in finance committee's opinion this is on like the low side of what like a uh a budget
should be for sewer to address you know our aging infrastructure. Um, well, all right. So, something along that lines that I was thinking was, you know, the town likely has unrecognized,
you know, sewer capital requirements and as a town, we're choosing to focus on water before sewer. um you know somewhat similar to what you said Nathan but maybe with a little more detail or
so I don't know if that's something somebody we people think we should add we can add a little something >> I don't remember that we talked to Justin about that about and maybe that just comes from his um
emphasis on new water resources and and sort of the precarious nature of our water supply as if the sewer as if the sewer system wasn't in such a precarious position. Um,
>> well, I think it's not >> because of the >> precarious a position, but I don't know if that means it's not precarious at all. >> Yeah. >> I mean, he talked about the lightning strike and the drought conditions
um and some of the failures in water, but not not on the other side of it. >> I wouldn't want to add very much without talking to Justin. Yeah. >> Uh but I'm sure he would love it if we were going to say,
"Oh, by the way, there's this whole other thing we're not really dealing with, but it's still there." But I would want a little more context from him. >> I mean, because he even talks in his comments about deflation, commodity stabilization,
long-term contract stabilization. And so it seems like he's got this in good order to keep these increases reasonable. Now, and our sewer budget went up. Did our sewer rates go up? I They went up
anyway, didn't they? >> Yes. Well, water and sewer are kind of the same. >> Yeah. >> Um although I would have actually thought there would be a slight difference between water and sewer because they are different funds,
right? I don't but the same idea of decreasing volume because sewer is based on sewer billing is based on water usage. >> Right. So, are we thinking maybe to leave it as is for now? And if we feel inclined to
add anything to our handout, we can um speak to Justin about that first. >> Yeah, I I would feel comfortable with that. Not going any further about deficiencies in the sewer until we're more until I myself are a little more
knowledgeable about about it. >> Yeah. Or if others, you know, feel strongly we really should be commenting. I mean, we could take that out and just say outtown meeting and then have a more
expansive comment. Yeah. Yeah, I mean if there's like additional context, I think, you know, certainly couldn't hurt to have that in our in our final comment. >> But I'm sorry. Do you mean we should >> Yeah, like have a more expansive thing that that we actually give like at at
town meeting, especially if there's more context that we want. >> So leave this out. >> Yeah, we can just put at town meeting for the moment. Y >> but just my opinion. >> I mean it'll make people look for it at town meeting is the advantage to doing that, >> right? I mean, I feel like, you know, I don't know how closely people really follow our comments, but if they see
this, they may not look for additional stuff at town meeting, >> right? >> Okay. So, I need to redo that. Okay. >> Do we want to, you know, is that something that I should um email Justin on or do we want him to to
join a meeting and speak to us on that? Um, if it's okay with you, I would just email Justin. >> Yep. I know. Absolutely. >> Um, just cuz then I can go back and forth and draft something without it having to wait a week. >> Okay.
>> Or two weeks because we're not meeting next week. But, um, >> so just getting more context to how we can how would you word that? um to address
the areas that still need help. Okay. >> There's probably stuff in the capital budget that's sewer related I could look at too. Okay. >> Okay.
All right. Um 22 we voted and commented on. >> But did we vote on 21? >> Yeah, I don't think we vote on 21. >> Oh, sorry. Sorry. >> We didn't. >> I'll move to recommend. >> All right.
>> Was that Nathan? >> Uh yes. >> All right. And I'll take a roll call vote. Linda. >> Yes. >> M. Yes, >> Peter. >> Yes. >> And Nathan. >> Yes. >> I am a Yes.
>> Thank you. All right. Looks like article 22 we actually did not vote on yet, but we have a comment um >> with the um sorry to interrupt just with the the comment for 20 for number 22. Um, I had um I had seen that it says there's like a fill-in- thelank amount
on the on the draft warrant. I think that was like passed around. Um, just to to check up on that, I had seen that from our minutes from the 30th um it looks like the amount in the um sewer retained um retained earnings was 838,000. And then I see that the comment
says um 7 seven something. Um, so are we have are we do we have a final amount for that for that current balance for the sewer retained earnings or >> you're probably right. I think she had left it maybe blank for me and I used those incorrect numbers that weren't updated. >> Okay.
>> So if you So what what is the correct number? 838. >> Yeah, the the minutes from last from the 30th just say 838K. Um but I guess that's >> so it's um it's 838005. >> Perfect. >> Nice. because the number at the top of
this is is wrong. We still think >> Yeah. Yeah. >> It's old. Yeah. >> So, our comment um that Nquille did said, "This article proposes transferring 200,000 from sewer retained earnings with the current balance of 83805
to replenish the FY27 sewer enterprise fund reserve fund. Sewer retained earnings represent the accumulated surplus from prior fiscal years within the sewer enterprise operating account. Given the continued aging of the town's sewer system, this reserve enhances financial flexibility and minimizes
disruption to ongoing operations. Do we want to take a vote on this one? I'll move to recommend. Right. >> Uh, I'll second. >> And I will take a roll call vote. Linda, >> yes. >> Nikil, >> yes.
>> Peter, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> And I am a yes. And do we have any comments on the note? Do we feel it's sufficient? >> I think it sounds >> Yes. I mean this is a recurring article.
>> Pretty basic. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thanks, Mielle. All right. So, the next one, 23. Um, we also need to vote on and review the note. So this is Oh, the service truck
and I think is there a comment? Yeah, Greg did write us about this too. So he said, um, I'll double. So we asked, is it still 50% of the cost? I thought it was 100% now. Um, list price
50,000. Why is it 120,000? What kind of custom equipment does it get? And Justin did send an email, too. And I don't know if that was circulated. Um, but Greg said, "I'll double check this with Justin. Um, for as far as the truck goes, 80 80 to
85,000 is the list price. Um, it needs to get fitted out." Oh, why is it 207? So, that's the capital that's the amount in the capital request accepted by the capital planning committee. Um, I can share something that um, did you
guys get a circulation from Justin? because I can pull up um it's in board docs and let me go to so it's
this one. Where'd it go? It's the um F550 hook Madigan. I'll share this. Let me stop my share. Reshare. >> I'm sorry. This is inboard docs or
>> Yes. So, this was the estimate for >> Oh, I see. Just all this stuff. Okay. >> I know there's so much. It's kind of in different categories. Um, but let me also, so in his email,
let me stop share so you don't see all of my emails. Make this bigger. Share. Can also zoom in on our end, I think, as well. >> But so, sorry, the quote is 140.
That's for the F550 >> which is in there for 204, >> right? And then there's a the service Madigan comes up at 106. All right, let me pull my email real
quick. Um, sorry, bear with me. Here it is. Okay, so I'm just going to read this. Um, he said this is a very mis um common misconception. So the MSRP represents
the most basic stock cab in um chassis, the skeleton of a work truck. Technically, if we only procured a cab and check, I'm saying that wrong, we could not legally register the vehicle to drive on the road as the rear frame would be exposed. These vehicles are designed specifically to address the needs of um a municipality in New
England which has significant number of needed upgrades and he talks about them. Um, I have attached quotes that built built our capital platform for these particular vehicles in question. Please find that the F550 is a multi-dimensional platform vehicle and
includes the Colonial State procured MSRP and the third party Madigan. Oh, so I think it includes I think two of those quotes maybe go on one of them. >> So you have to add them together. >> You have to add them together. Yeah. >> Okay. To get one truck. Okay. >> Right.
Yikes. >> Um I have also included our last year's service um vehicle procurement of 350 which as you can see was far more um um expansive than the original allocation. This is based on the time it takes to acquire this equipment due to our town processes.
>> All right. Fine. >> Okay. >> I just I I want to be able to have someone stand up at town meeting and say this is why it's 204,000, >> right? you know, with confidence as opposed to what I did and just googling
it. So, >> so this is 23. >> And what about the 50 service truck 50%. >> That didn't change. 120,000 is 50% of it. >> And where's the other half coming from?
Is it in the >> It's I mean not for the 350 3500. Oh, right. Cuz what he sent was for the others. Yeah, I'm not seeing a quote for the 3500,
but I mean there's a quote for the F350, which is, you know, not Oh, no, that's the other one. >> So, the F550, the 207, that's way up in free cash. >> Yes. >> Yep. So, that's where that truck is
going. That's a good But there's this other truck, the 3500. >> Yeah, I don't see that attached. Um, I'm looking. I see one thing from it, but it doesn't.
>> It's the X3V service. Madigan, is that the the other one or No, >> I think must be the other one that comes to 207. Although 140 and 106 don't add up, but >> So, let me show you one more thing that I maybe didn't attach.
Can you see this? Is it anything new? I'm just seeing the um let me stop my share >> the draft warrant. Um so this is sorry share. Ah so let me share. Okay it's this right
here. This is all I have on the 3 F 350. Oh no that's the 550 still. So, I don't have anything on that. >> I don't think this was on um >> No, I didn't. I I didn't get this. This was just saying how it um the extra
increases. >> Yeah. I mean, he may be swapping the Chevrolet 3500 for that F350, which is the X3B. Um, but
I still I mean that so that was 106,000. This one's 120,000. But again, I kind What's the service truck 50% mean? >> Right. Right. So, we should defer on this, do you
think, and ask Justin? >> I kind of want to. >> Yeah. >> So, this is article 12. >> Where's the other 50% coming from? >> Or take that out if it really is the whole truck. >> I mean, it's just, >> right? Is it the whole truck or do we
need to take that out? >> And if not, >> if it's 240,000, why is it so much? We're going to be back to that question. >> Okay. So, we'll wait >> and we'll leave our comment highlighted
that it's not finalized yet. Well, we're going to have to send these off. So, it will say at town meeting regardless. >> Yeah. For both. >> Right. Okay. So, I'll clean that up. >> You see? >> Okay. So article 24 we have a bunch we
have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 eight more um so article 24 this is um oh yeah that is the right number okay uh sewer retain I think I maybe did the last well yeah anyway I think Nikil you
did this one right >> yes I believe so >> yes okay um so this is to transfer $250,000 dollars. Oh, for the purpose of supplementing the rotating biological contractor um capital improvements within the wastewater
treatment plan. >> Uh I'll move to recommend article 24. >> I'll second. >> And I'll take a roll call vote. Linda, >> yes. >> Nielle, >> yes.
>> Um Peter, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> And I'm a yes. The only thing in the comments is should it say the 83 thou 838,000 from FY25? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yes.
>> So the finance committee recommends approval of this article which requests the transfer of 250,000 from the sewer retained earnings currently totaling. We know that's correct for emergency repairs to critical infrastructure at the wastewater treatment plant. article structured as an accounting exercise to bridge the funding cycle and maintain the reserve fund and importantly the
transfer will not impact water sewage rates which is good to say. Um, >> but I'm sorry. >> Wait, what is that last sentence you just this account? This >> this article is structured as an accounting exercise to bridge the
funding cycle and maintain the reserve fund. And importantly, the transfer will not impact water or sewage rates. does not affect water and sewer rates. I'm sorry. What's meant by the first part of that comment?
I'm not. Are you saying we plan to do this last year and have free cash because we didn't do it and that um the accounting exercise language language error I think is a is a post nil draft edition I think by by Jill
perhaps. Um, but I think it must it's just seems to be a reference to this language in the sponsor comment about this being a more appropriate financial accounting practice. I guess I mean should we just take that part out?
I see this transferred. >> Yeah. Financial accounting practice due to fiscal change. Yeah. >> Okay, fine. We can leave it in, I guess. Yeah. Okay. I don't Um specifically, these funds will address the failure of the one rotating
biological contractor RBC. Um while proactive replacement of two to three units at a time would ideally help manage life scale life cycle cost, this is not feasible at pres at present due to the need for a broader plant upgrades and current funding limitations. This
typical replacement cost ranges from 250 to 350 and recent procure procurement has experienced lead times up to 46 weeks. Oh, that's a long time. Due to tariffs in global events, because the plant is only addressing failures as they occur, swift action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory
standards. The finance committee supports this measure to safeguard public health and environmental quality through timely repairs to essential infrastructure. >> Yeah, sounds good to me. >> Okay, awesome. So, I'm going to unhighlight. you know, color.
>> And in the sponsor comments, they talk about they're reallocating funds from reserve to retained earnings, but I think it's the o I think they're doing the opposite. They're going from retained earnings to reserve, but um
that's their comments, but >> as I understand it the opposite way, but I think Justin means they had the money in FY26
from reserve funds >> but then didn't spend it which transfers it into retained earnings. >> Okay. Yep. Yep. Yep. Okay. >> And then it shows up as part of that 838. So now we need to essentially
reappropriate it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Um, article 25, we have to vote. Um, and oh, this is the outdoor lighting one that they talked to us last week on. So, to see if the town will vote to
amend the town bylaw. Um, I won't read this whole thing. It is extremely long. I know we didn't really discuss it after they it was last week, right, that she came to talk to us about it. >> No.
>> Um any conversation on that since we didn't talk about it? >> Oh, this is really long. >> Uh I'm I've been a little on the fence about this. I I really like it in terms of street lights, municipal lighting. I
like it in terms of business lighting. The only the part I apprehensive about is the uh residential portion. Um I'm I'm not sure how how big of an issue residential lighting is in contributing
to um you know uh brightening like light pollution as opposed to those two other sources. Um and it seems like it might be leading to conflicts with neighbors. Um, I don't I don't like the restrictions on, you know, holiday
lights, um, and lighting after like 11:00. >> Um, that said, you know, Nathaniel's like, you know, engineering and he really liked the uh uh the way it was written and and he was he wanted to like
advocate for this pretty strongly last week. Um, so I'm since he's not here, I'm kind of kind of hearing what he he was talking about there. And I that might sway me a bit more in favor of this. If it isn't like perfectly
exactly the way I would want it to be, then any like big complicated um amendment isn't going to be like exactly what I like. But, um, I think I I think overall I'm more in favor of this than I
am opposed to it. I think that's where I am right now. >> Is this the one I'm just trying to remember her conversation where um they didn't have any body of people to enforce it.
My my understanding it was the appeal of the enforcement that the town administrator or designate would enforce it and right now it's written that the board of health would appeal appeal it and that was kind of the sticking issue but um I mean I really I
really like this um I think it was important they made a great um presentation in terms of personal health in terms of wildlife It's presumably no or minimal cost to the town. And I
just think that we could get somehow get over um that that appellet role somehow, you know, either give the board of health the training and equipment that they need. Um and it's, you know, I know we talked a
little bit about, you know, these are complicated things, but the state is not coming forward and doing anything. So, I think it would be important for the for the town to do it. Um, it's also she made a great point about it being good
for seniors, too, cuz glare is, you know, as you age, it's a it's a real concern. nighttime glare and the the flaw was that appellet as I understood it was really the appellet rule of the board of health but I think
somehow that that's got to we have to find a way to solve that that seemed like a minor deficiency So, I mean, I agree with the, you know, uh, point of this regulation and certainly can live with regulating
outdoor lighting. I'm still a little stuck on what's the rush? Why can't we solve some of this, >> get a little bit more informed about all the details here, and do this in the fall? There's there's to me there's little
reason it has to be done this town meeting and I you know from their presentation recognized they you know spent some significant time on this with you know the bylaw committee and a couple others and trying to get input
and you know altered it you know as people made recommendations. But I as one person feel like I'm sorry, I'm just hearing about this and I'm a pretty informed person in Maynard and am not
comfortable voting on it so quickly or putting it in place so quickly. >> I I feel like uh whenever they they present it, it's going to be like the first time somebody's hearing about it, though. Um >> to totally valid. Uh for what for
whatever it's worth, you know, I you know, they were at the farmers market last summer um multiple weeks. Uh so like I I had knew a little bit about it just from that. Um they've been they've been around.
>> Huh. Maybe I'm not around. Ah, >> did they address who would change all these light fixtures? Linda, you said there was little to no cost to the town, right? >> It's only new light fixtures. And and I thought the point was that having a a a
light fixture that would be compliant with this is no extra expense to the homeowner or to the business. Um, >> right. Okay. >> So, it would be except she did say that one of course one of the big um potential violators is some of the some
of the examples of bad lighting is actually in town facilities. So, just as we're doing new town facilities or rep maybe repairing, we could think about um at no addition no difference in cost. That was my understanding. no difference in cost for getting a light fixture
that's compliant with this um than just, you know, a random light fixture. >> Nil or Kate, Kate, anything to say? I would say I'm I'm sort of in two minds and I think I mean I think everyone's just like you know made really good
points. I think I I think for me uh kind of how I would maybe summarize it sort of at least for myself is I mean the merits are obviously like really great. I I think you know I I certainly am in favor of those. My kind of main concern is just if you have like an kind of a town department that's not willing to
sort of act as the you know appellet sort of review uh entity um that that you know is a bit of a concern because it it makes certainly enforcement more difficult and that's obviously like a a big part of the bylaw. Um but I I would say certainly I'm kind of in two minds
at the moment in terms of how I'm maybe leaning. I I think I would want to think a little bit more um about it. But at the same time, if like folks are are wanting to vote this evening, that's, you know, perfectly fine as well. >> Yeah. And I don't know, like would would
it make more sense to first deal with that um board of health issue prior to it being voted on? Because if they can't if it's Oh, sorry. Oh, thank you. Um, so is it that that if
this passes and the board of health is gonna appeal to not enforce this, correct? Is what what the concern was. >> Well, is that right? >> No, the board of health will be the appeal thing. I think they've said they
feel like they don't have expertise in this area, >> right? And you know, as health priorities go, you know, reading a little between the lines, they don't want to spend a lot of time learning everything they need to when, you know, they have other health
priorities. >> And if this passes, would they have to, whether they wanted to or not? >> Well, they would have. They would be the appeal. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. So I feel I feel we could take a vote on this tonight.
I I feel ready to take a vote on it as one member. >> I'm ready. >> I also would not be opposed to a vote kind of as I had mentioned and stuff too. >> Does someone want to make a motion one way or the other? >> I'll move to recommend. I don't know if
I'll get a second, but we'll see. >> I'll second. >> All right. And I'll take a roll call vote. So, Linda, >> yes. >> Nikquille, >> yes. >> Peter, >> no. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> Na, yes.
>> Okay. >> Um, Nathaniel did mention to me that he'd be willing to write the comment for this because he felt pretty strongly about it. >> Okay. Okay. So, let me write here
recommends and then we'll put Nathaniel. Well, it'll be at town meeting, but for now, just for my records, after I clean these up, I'll put him. All right. Well, that was a big one. So, good.
Um, and anyone who said no, like Peter, if you want, you know, to let Nathaniel know maybe things that might be good to add in there just to be aware of when he's doing his comment, too, that you feel is important. Um, I'm sure he would do that, too. >> Uh, yeah, thank you. I I may or may not,
but I'll just storm town meeting floor and bent there. >> Don't regulate my Christmas lights. I don't bring a big spotlight. >> All right. What's the next one? Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Budget Fiscal year
27. So, this one we have not done anything on. >> This was held by the select board. >> Okay. >> This and I don't know that the numbers are final either, but um >> these numbers looked off to me. >> Yeah. Why are we
>> ind like the indirect that can't didn't possibly look correct solid waste. So this is just to fun solid waste, right? Um, so they wrote, "This is a new dedicated budget account designed to fully support
the cost associated with operating and maintaining the new automated curbside collection program. During special town meeting, um, the town through its legislative process adopted the solid waste enterprise fund. Since that adoption, the town solid waste task force developed a modernized curbside
um and initiated a um RFP from interested vendors. Mayor contracted with XXX. We don't know who that is. We won't know who that is. It looks like >> Harvey. >> Oh, it's Harvey. >> Uh in at the select board meeting, it seemed to be they had settled on Harvey. >> Okay. >> But
>> but they would update that comment. We wouldn't >> Yes. Yep. >> Right. So, I guess we assume that these numbers are correct. >> I mean, I personally question the indirect if they're going to add a new salary, which I I assume that looks like
a full-time person, which I can't I I mean, I've asked this question before of who was doing this before. Someone was doing the trash stickers and managing the contract. So, who was that? And why we're not seeing any savings
or why it has, you know, why it has to be a full-time person? And then why would the indirect only be 2,000? I mean, it should be at least 20 or more% of 85,000. Health insurance retirement.
>> Well, yeah. I I I someone more knowledgeable than me should answer, but it may also. >> Yeah. >> And I'm not sure if it will rate a full-time staff person after that.
Although let's say that would be another good question to ask. >> The other thing that makes me unsettled is we don't know any of the particulars from a resident's point of view of okay, what's this going to cost me? You know,
we're supposed to be able to control our cost, but we it's this just seems like such a black box to me of 1.2 million and what's my share going to be? We have absolutely I haven't seen anything may I you know I don't listen to the select
board meeting so maybe we know what your options are going to be >> that I think it will be presented next Tuesday. >> Next Tuesday. Yeah. >> Um >> so I mean we're not voting on this now but I would agree. I think
>> Well, you think we would defer this? >> Oh yeah. I don't It hasn't been released yet. Right. >> Okay. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. But I would say, I mean, to have sponsor comments that don't say, you know, we expect this to be $200 a
quarter or whatever the expected cost to residents. Um, it's kind of ridiculous not to have that in there. So, >> Right. Right. >> So, this could look different after next week. In any case, do you should I do you want me to email
anyone any specific questions, Linda? >> Um, if you want, I would ask how they're calculating the indirect from that salary. Um, and maybe if they have and the the other issue would be what what we think it's going to c how it would translate
to a range of costs for um res >> and who else? I mean, um, do we do commercial pickup? I don't know. We do the condos, but that's I think that's like individuals,
individual condo owners. >> And can I add to that? Um, you know, is the staff position a permanent position or is that really an implementation position? you know, does it do we envision it's a
full-time staff person forever >> or implementation? >> Yeah. Yeah. Just to, you know, get the program going and all that stuff. >> Yeah, I think that's a good question. >> And this would be Justin, correct?
>> Who I email or would it be Greg? Yeah. I I don't know the protocol that you and Jill use whether you go directly to Justin or go through Greg. >> I think go through Greg and then he sends it to him. >> I think that generally I mean you could
imagine a a town administrator getting ticked that we're asking too many questions of individual people. I think okay it's okay on the occasional thing, but I don't think he wants to pay them to sit there and answer our questions. So >> yeah, >> like he gets to vet it a little bit.
>> That makes >> Yeah, cuz for example, I'm just looking at the water enterprise fund and the indirect is more than the salaries, >> but that includes the cost of doing the bills and everything that the treasurer collector does,
>> right? So maybe that maybe that 2,000 the shared employee cost is for the treasurer to do the billing but water the salaries are 554k and the indirect is 600k
but that include you're right it does include shared employees so 200 but something just seems off. >> I will I will inquire. >> Thank you. Yeah. So, we will not vote or comment on this
one tonight. Um 27. Oh, citizens petition for the flag who they also presented last week, right? >> Yep. >> So, I'm gonna go down.
>> I think you're past it. This is the next article. >> Oh, I am. I'm like, "Oh, I didn't think we made a comment on this." So, they don't have a sponsor comment. I don't know if they will. I I guess they don't. Maybe this whole thing is their sponsor comment.
And we didn't discuss this after she presented either. Um, did anyone have thoughts that they felt were important to talk about on this one? I mean, we should >> I'll just say my bit again. I am concerned about town meetings time being
used for a you know a set of kind of public comment issues and so for that reason would recommend against this article. And this is also one that the state of Massachusetts has not adopted this.
Correct. These are just towns passing this to say to try to move it more, but it has not on the state level. >> I don't The state has set up a flag commission. >> Right. Right. And so I think you know
one could argue through that that the state has recognized the inadequacy of the current flag. >> Yeah. >> Uh but the commission hasn't come up with a recommendation yet. >> It seems like kind of like the general purpose of sort of the the municipal
versions of these essentially are to kind of like give the state commission a bit of a nudge essentially. Um it seems like in the in the draft itself they say that the state commission was initially like established in 2021. So I guess they feel like it's the the purpose it
seems to me at least is to is to give kind of a nudge um to to move along essentially the work of the state commission basically. Uh yeah, Peter, I I share your concern about um articles like this being brought before town meeting just like
bogging things down with like divisive issues. Uh I'm but I'm I'm not sure that recommending against it. I mean, we we can write our comment and say that we don't want to see that happen one way or another, but I I don't think voting against recommending it is going to
actually get that message across and prevent the next citizens petition from bringing something like that before town meeting if that's what somebody wants to do. And like personally, I really want a new a new state flag. So, >> well, I was thinking the same thing,
Nathan, that like this is gonna because just because it it's in the warrant, so people are going to discuss it at town meeting whether whatever we comment, you know, >> yeah, there's going to be lines on this one of people commenting on it, you know, no matter what we say. So, it will
take time period most likely. Yeah. Do people feel they have a strong opinion to vote today? >> I could vote. >> Yeah, I'm fine voting, but you know where I'm going. So,
>> I won't make the motion though. Uh, >> I'd move to recommend uh the flag article. >> I'll second the motion. Okay. And I'll take a roll call vote. Linda, >> yes. >> Nikil, >> yes.
>> Peter, >> no. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> And I'm a yes. So, we will put recommends. Um, Nathan, do you want to take the
comment for this one? I I can, but like I I don't I don't really think that we should get into it, you know, like like you're saying like enough people are going to like get up and like share their opinions on like the floor of town meeting. Um I think
I mean I kind of want to get like Peter's suggestion that like yes, we recommend this but um we're not sure like and I'm not sure how I would phrase that exactly. >> Yeah. Um,
>> yeah, >> just to get it over with and I, you know, my if I wrote this, it would be fairly tur and short. So, um, you know, I would go with something like the majority of the committee were
swayed by the merits of the petition and recommend approval. Um, for the fun of it, I would say, you know, some members were concerned
about uh nontown issues, right? Well, maybe there's a better way to say nontown issues. um you know coming up at town meeting and
you know diverting time from town needs something like that I is that >> some member um some members expressed concern that town meetings run long >> and it's difficult to get through all of
our like municip ible matters about, you know, Maynard in the time that we have and that um uh articles like this that are about state or or um that are that pertain to like other
levels of government may not be the best use of town meeting time. I >> I will accept that. I do not know if that is what you said exactly, but I just swayed. Okay. Majority of the committee um the
majority of the committee were swayed by the merits of the petition and recommended approval. Um some members were concerned about the town meeting um being long, running long. Or how about instead of about we're concerned that
town meeting runs long. >> Yep. That town meeting runs long and that is difficult to get through the municipal matters matters at hand. Articles like this that pertain to other wells of government may not
>> other levels of government. >> Other levels. Yes. Like where did wells come from? Other levels. >> Sure. was swayed. Would committee as one be a was swayed or were >> majority is singular. So I think yeah the majority was swayed.
>> Was okay. Some members were concerned that that town meeting runs long. We could just put plural in that. Um instead of would be what about it is difficult does that I'm
>> it is difficult. >> Yeah. >> Yes. through um uh instead of saying the municipal matters at hand uh get through the
business pertaining directly to Maynard. >> The business pertaining >> issues pertaining directly to Maynard. Yeah, I think issues the issues pertaining directly to earth
and that it is difficult to get through the issues pertaining directly to Mayor. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay, that's fine by me. I mean, I I would also, you know, some members were concerned like kind of makes it sound like the minority was
concerned about this and, you know, I'm in I'm in favor of this, but I also have that concern. >> I was cons. Yeah. Yeah. >> Would can we just say, however, the committee is concerned that towning runs long. Can we say that as like the voice of the whole committee?
>> So, the majority of the committee um was swayed by the merits of this. However remain or we are concerned or the committee is concerned. >> I mean to the extent that um and not to
speak for Peter of course but to the extent that uh Peter is also uh persuaded on the merits but also has a concern we could maybe apply the voice of the committee to both of those kind of clauses if if you will. Um, >> yeah. I I guess I'm saying the majority because if anybody looks it up, it was a
4 to one vote, >> right? >> So, >> Right. He wasn't swayed. >> Yeah. >> You're swayed. So the majority of the committee was swayed by the merits of the petition and
recommended approval. However, the committee is concerned that the town meeting runs long and that is difficult to get through the issues pertaining directly to Maynard. Articles like this that pertain to other levels of government may not be the best use of meeting time. >> Uh can we add the word already that it is already difficult to get through the
issues pertaining directly to Maynard? >> All right. That looks good. >> All right. Good collaboration. >> Um, >> can I and I'm not sure my grammar is perfect but >> um, in the first sentence I would have
said recommends approval. >> Oh, >> again I mean the first part of that seems past tense. So maybe recommended is right. But >> the majority of the committee was swayed by the merits of this of the petition and recommends. No, I think it recommends. >> Yeah, cuz was swayed is about our
deliberation before the fact, >> right? >> And so anyway, I I but >> and it was a run on sins, so it had me do a semicolon that does that. >> I think we're good. >> Looks good. >> All right. Cool. Okay.
>> All right. So 28 is um Oh, it's changing the the bylaw for the marijuana dispensary, the business uses.
>> Um I'd make a motion to recommend article 28. >> I second. >> All right. I'll take a roll call vault. Linda, >> yes. >> Uh >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. Nathan, >> yes. All
>> right, I'm a yes. And we wrote comment draft assume vote will be to recommend. This has not yet been voted. So I think we drafted one. The finance committee recommends this article um ex existing recreational marijuana establishments in the central business district are successfully um
integrated into the district. These establishments continue a regular source of revenue to the town. Any new establishment or change in the use of existing establishment would be reviewed by the planning board in granting a special permit. the planning board can establish regular reviews of the permit. Um, and then we gave meaning of these
abbreviations just for clarification. >> Yeah, >> sounds good. >> Seems good. >> All right, so let's unhighlight. >> I drafted it and I had to look those up. I had like GA was like I had no idea what that was. >> Yeah. >> Oh gosh. >> That's helpful though. Thank you, Linda.
>> Yeah. I was like, oh, >> that was a good addition. >> Yes. Garden Apartments is always the tough one to remember. Is it? Yeah, I was I couldn't even guess that one. >> I don't even know what a garden apartment is. But anyway, um >> Sounds nice, doesn't it?
>> It sounds nice. Yeah. Oh, this one I just made a note. Article 29. I don't think it has been voted on. Um >> No. And there likely will be changes to it. >> Yeah. So, we don't even really need to >> that one tonight. Maybe I'll take >> Yeah. for anybody who does care, and it
seems like Jill more than anybody, but um >> the select some members of the select board were concerned that the fines acrewed too quickly and wanted to tone it down a bit. It's like 35 bucks a month if you're late.
And they were concerned that all of a sudden it's May and you owe 300 bucks or 200 bucks on a dog license. So, H. We'll see. >> Interesting. Okay. >> So, we'll just pass this one, I guess, for now. And more to come on it.
>> Yep. >> And then we just have a few more. So, article 30. This is the zoning ch Oh, citizens position petition um to see if the town will vote to amend the zoning map. >> I don't think you have to read. Does
everybody know what this is? >> You're past it already. >> Oh, did I? >> Very brief. >> Oh, it's really short. Um, >> so I'd make a motion. >> Right, right, right. Yes. Yes. >> All right. I'll make a motion to recommend article 30.
>> I second. >> All right. Take a roll call vote. Linda, >> yes. >> Nikil, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Uh, Nathan, >> yes. >> And I'm a yes. And then we had already written a note and it's not highlighted so we can run with that. This um
introduce new guidelines for prospective property developers regarding >> that's wrong. >> Oh >> bicycle. What is this one then? >> Parker Street Industrial. >> Um so I mean I can add libit.
>> Yeah. So this is all should be deleted. >> Yeah. >> I wonder where that came from. Okay. Let's add lib. Uh, this article changes the zoning on a small parcel currently zoned as
industrial. Um, period. Uh, the parcel is near or adjacent to uh 129 Parker Street
or do we have a better name for that now? But um and commercial, you know, fits better than industrial or allow.
>> And I got a notice today that the planning board is having a hearing on this tomorrow. So this article changes the zoning on a small parcel currently zoned as industrial. The parcel is adjacent to park and commercial is more favorable than industrial.
>> Uh can we say more appropriate or favorable? >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Am I appropriate? Um, and we could put in a plug to say, you know, and is likely to allow
uh more redevelopment or allow better development or I don't know how to phrase, but we're likely to more more likely to get tax money out of it as commercial than trying to figure out an industrial use. And it's more likely
more commercial revenue >> the president >> facilitate >> or fiscally beneficial to the town. >> Yeah, sure. That's good for >> allow more commercial development that is No, that's good. Commercial development
that is fiscally Oh my god. that is fisc fiscally beneficial to the town. rather than is likely to allow more. Uh can we say would facilitate? >> Um is there any way to make that last after the and
uh just be a to put a period after industrial and do that as a sentence? >> Yep, that's a good idea. >> It's a long sentence otherwise. This would >> change or this. Yep. Either one.
>> A gun. >> Yeah, I'm good with it. Anybody else? Anyone hate it? All right, we're moving on. All right, 31 is Oh, the tax. >> I'll uh turn my camera off. If you'd
like to remove me as like co-host and stuff, that's that's uh good, too. But I'll uh I'll see you guys on the other end of it, I guess. >> This sounds good. >> Okay. There was something in board docs about this as >> I just noticed when I got to all the the
bottom of all the other stuff. >> Um let me look. So I think this was >> that's meaner tax title presentation. No, the which is the presentation they
showed us. I thought I saw something from like uh uh mass legal. >> Oh, >> which I saw for one second and quickly closed it because it wasn't about the trucks.
But >> um looking Wasn't the draft controls for free cash minute? >> Where did I see this? Was it the follow-up letter? Oh, it was
the follow-up letter. Peter, um, let me >> let me stop my share and I will share the follow-up letter. I did read this. Um he I'll I'll kind of we're not going to read out loud this whole thing. Um but he his argument is
that it's actually going to um create more revenue because and then he gave a few examples. Um it's going to save the town the upfront cost of litigation in the land court. and he um they took a few docket
numbers and dispositions of of past ones and it came up to like 11,900 in legal expenses that the town had to pay to seek foreclosure judgments. Um so he's saying we would we would save on that and that this also affects a very
small amount of people. Um but yes, this is in board docs if anyone wants to pull it up. And it's called um how does she have this titled >> follow-up letter? >> Yes. Yes. >> Uh it's under
uh 1B ATM articles received discussions and it's called Maynard follow-up letter. >> I think he was very thoughtful in his response on it. Um, >> but who is this guy?
>> So, this is >> this is the guy who presented >> Todd Kaplan. Oh, lead attorney. I don't think he presented. Did he? >> Yes. >> That's the guy who was a presenter last
week. Oh, I didn't catch that. >> I thought it was Elpen. Chris Elf. Maybe he was on there. He was he was the 140 he was Alfen was the 141 Park or street attorney. >> Oh okay. >> And Todd Kaplan presented for Nick cuz Nquille couldn't. So Todd Kaplan
presented. >> I see. Okay. I mean, I don't know cuz you guys haven't really had time to read through this if you wanted to defer it. Um, or if you had feelings strongly one way or the other, but this letter basic it just proposed
it that this is really an asset to the town to be able to do and we're likely to recover more money than we get now. And that he said um this last page was that um let me go He was saying um that the council argues
this. I felt this was good too. Where did it go? Oh, the council raised the point that the waiver of interest is harmful because the town cannot replace that money and the collection of tax title accounts is not found or added money. But he's saying there was money already
missing like we didn't have that money to begin with and so any money we can recover we are in the positive. Um but there's a lot of information. How did you all feel after the presentation?
I'll say it seems like and even this letter confirms that this is from in the last what was this from 2022. So it's it's not going to be a frequent thing seemingly.
Um and it would allow the town um you know one more tool to to keep people current. Um, you know, my I had one concern about the financial hardship that it didn't
include an asset test. Um, the attorney Kaplan seemed like he didn't think, you know, that that financial hardship would be used that often. Um,
I'd like to see that added in, but um for for the for the that category, but that's a a relatively minor. >> And sometimes asset tests, I feel I help clients get in housing that sometimes have assets that aren't um advantageous
to use, like you know, potentially their IRA assets that they could be penalized on, you know, taxed at a high tax rate. >> Yeah. I know for housing like to to get public housing they don't do asset tests. It's purely income based. >> Yeah.
>> But >> I mean the only thing I would other thing I would note is so on sorry I've lost my Zoom meeting. I can't Can you guys >> I can see you. I can see you. >> Okay. Somehow I can't find it. um on
page four of this letter and I got to give the guy credit for doing research, but you know, so we spent almost $12,000 in four years for a tax title foreclosure legal,
which isn't a huge amount of money to me. So, the idea that, you know, we're going to save all this money by avoiding going to foreclosure, um, doesn't seem that much. It doesn't seem
that much to me. Yeah. I don't think that was a big argument in the whole piece of it either. Um, well, would we defer on this? And
my suggestion would be, I mean, can we share this letter with the treasurer and ask for comments back? and see if there's more information or I mean if people are in favor of this then we should just vote tonight or I
don't want to needlessly delay it. I think I'm still gonna end up voting against this one mostly on the citizens petition as a bad way to do this stuff. And >> how would someone go about it? Um
>> would they would they go to the select board to add it as a initiative for town meeting like in proper form? Well, I citizens petitions are perfectly proper form. I don't mean to say, but you know, in my form, it would be
circulated and, you know, you try to get the select board on board and get the treasure to com treasure collector to comment a whole bunch about it and, you know, have a back and forth. >> Mhm.
Um that that makes better policy than someone drafting it themselves. >> I don't know. Linda Nathan, how do you feel about it? >> I'm I'm not sure. >> I'm not sure either. I really like this.
like I really I really like it. But, you know, to your point, Peter, it might be be nice to get thoughts of the treasurer. I I don't I don't think that that's a bad idea. I'm I'm looking at the um the email
exchange from last week's meeting between uh from Allison Finel and you know Jen Welch the treasurer collector and you know some of the um some is Allison Finel is she like a town um attorney uh council I
>> I think so that was my reading of it when I read that email. He worked for town council was one of the lawyers there >> and yeah and and she was recommending that you know it should really be restricted to single family homes that
are owner occupied that it should be restricted to make sure only lawful record owners can apply. So not not like an error that uh has just like received the title. Um no more than a five-year payment plan with 25% down. Not really
sure why why that's necessary, but uh all new bills must be paid in full and on time, but it kind of sounded like from the presentation last week that once the payment plan was put into place, if you failed to do the payment plan, then it would go back to um you
know the regular process of like defaulting and lean taking, right? And the question of like no waiver on interest, but you know that's high 16% is a really high interest rate and if that's like compounds over time, I can
see how it quickly become like impossible for somebody to like pay back their their taxes. So, um >> when they already can't pay them to begin with, how's that going to >> Yeah. So, I mean that that's one thing I like about this uh
about this change. Um, >> but maybe it just needs more revisions and more communication with, you know, the town and putting in those particular clauses. Is that something that we can do? Because part of this is like latching on
to a um like an option that was passed at the state level, right? And like but towns have to opt into it. Is that right? >> I think so. >> Um, >> yes. And in that case, are towns allowed to opt into it with restrictions like saying it only applies to owner occupied
single family homes? >> I don't know the answer to that. >> I think the answer is yes. And as it was described, you know, they basically took I I think it was Springfields or West Springfield's policy and then modified
it a little bit to make it Maynard's, but that each of those towns listed has a slightly different policy. So, do we feel we should defer on this one? But if so, what would be our followup on it?
Let me stop my share and go back to the word document. Share. I don't know if we sound ready to vote tonight from >> Yeah, because if if I deferred, I'd like to read the Kaplan's response more closely and I would like to look at a
couple of towns that might be like us to see what they did and that's that's a lot of work on us. Um, >> would you like me to send this to the town treasurer um and ask their their thoughts on it? Is there do you think
there's a purpose to that? Well, did the town treasurer already weigh in? I >> I don't think on this letter. >> Oh, not on the letter. Okay. I mean, that that would be helpful to me. >> Okay. >> Because it seems like such a good program.
>> Yeah. I I like >> except some of those like limitations seem reasonable because it seems like especially single family. It seems like that's who we want to protect is >> Yeah. Um people who for some reason get
behind um >> yeah absolutely. >> Um can I suggest and you know feel free but um maybe ask the treasurer or
collector to focus on that section two uh the benefits to Maynard. >> Okay. Um just because I mean they at least by this guy's saying it, you know, seem like real benefits. The
proposed bylaw will facilitate collection of unpaid taxes thereby increasing the town's revenue. >> So does the treasurer collector think that's true or not? >> Right. Right. >> Um and the sum about will avoid costs by
not having to go to litigation. And so, you know, I think the Treasury Collector is going to say, "Look, you know, the people we're foreclosing on would have failed this test anyway and wouldn't have been eligible for this program because they won't pay anything." I I don't know, but
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> But it' be curious to hear their input on it. I mean because I think it is a good statement of pluses to this uh bylaw proposed bylaw but curious you
know what other people say about what you know the treasurer collector says about it >> who is our treasurer >> I'm sorry I don't know >> I can look that That's an easy one. So, okay. So, we'll
defer on this one. Um, we could do our own research in the meantime, and I will send this letter to the treasure and ask those follow-up questions. Um, and then we'll be able to get Jill's thoughts, too. So, um, all right. So, then we have,
is it our last one? There's this one was new and I feel it was >> um this was held by the select board. >> Oh, you're right. >> So, this will only come into play if
they shift free cash to allow for the trash to be run through the operating budget through October. >> Okay. So if they, you know, have to fund that 221,000, they have to cut the police cruiser line
item in free cash and then this would be the remainder of that line item. >> Okay. >> So we wouldn't vote on this until select board. >> I I tend to and I it's not even clear that it'll be presented at town meeting.
So Okay. >> Okay. That's all of them, I think. So I mean we're we're gonna I guess do we feel we want to make comments tonight? So if there's any easy ones to make comments on tonight. So let me start from the beginning. So we have
sorry making us all dizzy. Um number one recommends comment. Number two recommends comment. Number three number three we don't have a comment. This is on prior year years year's bills. Do we Linda? You do
>> I'm gonna I'm gonna I'll draft it. Um um but were we for some reason were we going to wait on that? >> Well, we didn't know if we could like quick do it. I think we had a vote on it. >> Yeah, we had a vote on it. >> So, we did. Um, do we feel like that
should be a more thoughtful one or do we think we could make this a do it right now one? >> Yeah, I think we didn't do it early because we were saying, well, let's wait and do voting first, >> right? >> I think most of the others we did end up
doing comments, so I don't think we had that many to go back to. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Um, >> I mean, this is something we do every year. No, I don't think there was one last year. >> Do it last year. >> Oh, okay. >> And it generally is a mistake when we
have to do it. >> I don't know. I thought we did one last year. >> I didn't see I looked >> I looked I I looked >> I'm going to look at 2024. >> Feel we've done one at least in the last
couple years. I don't see one in 2024. >> No, >> cuz wasn't there one from like Eversource or Verizon that we had to pay? >> Oh, maybe it was this cuz this is 24 to 25.
2023. >> I don't see it in 2023 either. >> Okay. Wait, I see article 32 in 2023. >> Oh, yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Okay. >> Article 2. What did I say? 32.
>> Oh, damn. Warren is all >> So, we have a passage of this article appropriates blah blah money from free cash for the purpose of paying bills from prior fiscal years. Anytime funds are needed for prior fiscal years, that appropriation must be voted on at town
meeting. Town council has advised that these bills, even though those being several years outstanding, need to be paid. Fin reviewed the circumstances for these prior year bills and has found no deficiency in the town's procedures. So, can we copy that?
>> I like that. I think that still applies. >> We don't have We don't have uh chat, right? I can't copy it into the chat. >> We don't have >> Can you Can you um quick email me that, Linda? Just copy past. >> Oh, yep. Yep. Yep. >> Okay. Crl C.
>> I won't >> box new mail KD or Okay, there it is. I don't know that we know we could say the part about town council but
>> right let me I got it. Thank you. >> Or we could we could uh strike that part. >> So passage of this article appropriates will change it. What is the number? Um >> it's more than that. >> It's 66,000. Yeah, it's a bit more than
that. 66 288.75 from free cash for the purpose of paying bills from prior fiscal years. Anytime funds are needed for prior fiscal years, that appropriation must be voted on at town meeting. >> Yeah. Do we know that town council has advised that these I mean, I'm sure they
would because they're on here, but >> yeah, I mean, we we haven't seen that any evidence of that. I think we could take that out, but >> we'll just say Pincom reviewed the circumstances. >> Yeah. Found no deficiency. Yeah.
>> Okay. Does that look good? >> Looks good to me. >> Okay. Awesome. Um, we didn't vote, so we're not going to These are ones that we had follow-up
questions on before. Like this one we wanted to um article 4. I see my notes that I made. >> Article four is free cash where there's two versions. >> Yes. Correct. Correct. Right. Um, >> article five, we recommended we
commented. Article six recom did not recommend but we commented seven um oh this is the general fund budget and I we have we have questions like should we add in health insurance we just want to make a more thoughtful comment I think this one we can't do
>> I I we can't do it tonight >> yeah so at town meeting but I'll still leave my name I'll for now just so I make a mental note to work on that um >> sorry do you want to put yellow on it to I just >> because I won't see it if I
So, I appreciate that. >> All right, >> Katie. That's our comment. >> It's not me. It's not me. All right. This one we recommended, we commented. Um, we did not. This is the ambulance receipts article 9. Do I have a note on
this one? Oh, there's still a typo. The two the 328,000 doesn't match. And so, we're going to remind them that there's a typo and we don't want to vote on it until it's corrected. Um, this one we recommended, made a comment, recommended, made a comment.
Look at us. Um, the body cameras. What was the issue with that one? Oh, yeah. We want to know about the 5-year versus the the 15. >> Um, I have a list of questions for that. So, we are waiting on that one. Um,
recommends comment. Recommends comment. Recommends recommends. Comment, comments, comments, comments. Sorry, I know this is a lot of scrolling. Comment recommends. Um, what is this one? The 3 million for water
borrowing. >> Nathaniel's going to do that. You were you were going to >> Oh, yes. Yeah. >> Yeah. He didn't cuz he Yeah. felt strongly about this one. >> Or he didn't, but he had signed up for it. No one else did. So, we'll we'll leave him to do it. Um,
we've recommended had a note. Oh, at town meeting. This was the we had decided at town meeting on this one. Um, recommends have the note. This one, it will be at town meeting.
This was the one we want to verify the 50% versus 100%. Lots of questions on this one. I'm going to just delete I might as well just delete this, right? Should I delete this? Well, maybe I'll leave it and just put
it on document just in case we want to use parts of it. >> U recommends. >> I think we're almost there. This one is so long. um recommends. Nathaniel's going to do that one. I'll let him know.
This one we did not vote on because we feel Well, it also they haven't voted on it. I feel they >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And it would get cut if they go with October 1st anyway. >> Right. Right. And then the flag
we recommended. We wrote a note. Aonian bylaw. We recommended wrote a note. I think the rest of you did too. >> Dog, we're waiting. >> Dog, we're waiting. >> And then the last one. We're waiting too.
>> Yeah, I think that's all of them. Good job, guys. >> A well-run meeting. >> Yes, Katie. >> Great work, Katie. Great job. >> I was really nervous. I was like, I don't I don't know. But yeah, Jill did great prep work. So, um that was
extremely helpful. Um and then so I guess the next things on let me go to my I can find it. So, we discussion and planning for public hearing I guess would be next. So, our public hearing is May 11th. Do we need
to do anything on that tonight? I mean, we're meeting again on the 27th, right? Let's >> Let's table that. Um, all right. Let me stop share. Let me bring up minutes from prior meetings.
Boards lets you stay logged in for a really long time. I love that I don't have to like relog in to access. All right. Um, stop share. Share. Share. All right. So, these are Linda's minutes
from March 30th. >> Did we not do these last time? >> We We It went so long. We We just We We ran out of gas. >> So, Justin, >> it's so long ago now, right? March. >> I know. I'm sure they're great.
I'm sure these are are beautiful, Linda. You are always very thorough. Anyone see any? >> Yeah, we ended. >> I'll move to approve the minutes of March 30th.
>> Do we have a second? Can I second? >> You can. >> All right, I'll second the approval of the meetings for March 30th and I'll take a roll call vote. Um, Linda, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes.
>> Nathan, >> yes. >> Nikio, >> I'm staying. >> Okay. And I'm a yes. And then Linda, did did I did I put on here? You didn't. >> I mailed them to you, but it wasn't until yesterday,
>> but I saw them. >> I don't think they I don't think they got to board doc. So, >> let me um we can look at them right now. Maybe Linda. Um Oh, here they are. I have them right here. So, download
>> um I'm sorry. I hate to be a nitstick picker, but um if they're not posted on board docs, >> great. Yeah. >> I I especially for minutes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we'll save April 6 for >> Yeah.
>> And then I don't know. I maybe I read it wrong. Linda, you sent them to me nicely because I was trying to figure out what we voted on. >> Yeah. >> I think your minutes say that we voted on minutes and we didn't. >> Oh. >> Oh, okay. All right. I will correct
that. Thank you. Thank you, Peter. I'll I'll correct that. And uh and then for future. So, we'll do those minutes next time. Um, and you've you found those corrections, Linda? >> I I And what I seem to send to you, it
said the committee deferred approval of the minutes. >> I'm sorry. Maybe I read something wrong then. Fine. Fine. >> It was Yeah. Okay. All right. Sorry. Okay, >> thank you. Thank you for checking though. >> Any updates from chairs and members?
>> Any big things happening since last Monday? >> No. Um, there's budget subcommittee Wednesday. >> Okay. And I don't I mean I don't think there's going to be anything because it'll all be dependent on the select
board next Tuesday, >> right? >> That's like the final stuff on the trash and everything. >> I've seem to fall off fallen off on the planning board reminders for meetings. I feel I have to go like online and ask for reminders of that. But anyway, I'
I'm going to make it a goal to get back on board with those. I have no I have no updates on my end either. And the and I hear I heard about the hearing tomorrow because it impact it's from the senior center committee. >> That's because they're I they may have
an interest. I I might try to stop into that hearing to see if the senior center has any concerns about the reasonzoning of 141 Parker, but >> Oh, >> yeah. >> Um I I don't know. I mean that because the scuttlebutt was it might be like if
it turned into a Starbucks or something might be better, right? have a Starbucks. >> Yeah. >> Through the senior center, but >> the select board was all hot to have senior services
like doctors, optometrists, and they had a visionable health community catering to our seniors. >> Okay, >> we'll see. Um I don't have any updates from the um the there's no recently accessible minutes from the economic development
committee. So, >> all right. So, future meeting agenda plannings. Um, and I'll just send I I don't She'll type this in and I'm sure send it to the town to to post, but um I would assume it'd be the same, right?
Where um we're still going to do budget and updates for FY27. We're still going to talk about articles received in discussions because there'll be a hand just a small handful of them probably potentially voted on or not voted on that we'll discuss f in further. Um
the hearing we're still going to talk about so I would leave that on. I don't think it needs to change. Right. >> Yeah. >> I agree. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry Katie. Do we For some reason, I thought Jill
wasn't gonna make April 27th either. >> Oh, I don't know. >> Off. >> I'll ask. I'll I'll confirm with her. >> Okay. >> I think I wrote just down this date, but I maybe just blacked out after this date and was like, "Okay." Didn't hear any others.
>> I'll ask. >> Is it possible that it was uh next week and then we realized we couldn't meet that day anyway because >> it's possible. Yeah. I I'm doing it from memory, but I thought she said she couldn't do May 4th either. >> Yeah. >> If if we decided to meet then,
>> right? >> And I thought that was like an extension of this period. >> Oh, so is that our our next meeting? May 4th. No, no, no. It's the 27th and then the potential >> the 11th. So May 4th we were thinking we might have to add if but doesn't look
like we will. But >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. We shouldn't have too many to update next time. and just prep for the hearing. But that's just having everything done really. >> Yeah. And
by the our next meeting, we'll have a finalized warrant with no, you know, it'll have gone to the printer. So, >> okay. Right. >> Then we just act on what's there >> and make our handouts accordingly. >> Yep.
>> Okay. I think that's it. All right. Do you think we're good? Call it a night. >> Yep. >> All right. I'll let someone make a motion. >> All right. I'll move to return. >> Okay. I'll second.
>> All right. Roll call vote. Linda, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> Nikil, >> yes. >> Awesome. All right. And we are journing at 9:30.